More complex clusters can form by placing any of /w/ /r/ /hh/ /l/ after these clusters.

Vowel ClustersLỏhondla only allows for vowel clusters starting in /a/. These clusters are ao, ai, au, ae, and aoi. I'll update this tomorrow.
Allophony
Lỏhondla has a very little in the way of allophony.

Case and PersonLỏhondla utilizes a direct-inverse alignment, where the hierarchy is second person > first person > third person proximate > third person obviative. Lỏhondla utilizes case-stacking, where other cases are stacked onto each other, though this isn't mandatory.

The plain case is literally plain, and is used for the hierarchal markers. The genitive expresses the common properties of a genitive case, and the common properties of an instrumental case. The movemental expresses movements, which is specified with suffixes placed on the verb of a phrase. The transformative expresses an object shifting into another object, and can also be used to say an object was lost.

Clitics
Lỏhondla's clitics are distinguished from cases because they have to accompany a case, and can't stand alone.

Dimunitive
The dimunitive is formed by reduplicating the first syllable of a word, and placing the clitic lao on the end of a word.

Augmentative
The augmentative is formed by reduplicating the first syllable of a word, and placing the clitic ni on the end of a word.

Cute Dimunitive
The cute dimunitive is formed by reduplicating the last syllable of a word, and placing the clitic do on the end of a word.

Distinguishative
The distinguishative shows that a noun is significant, so it may literally translate to An X among X. The clitic andỏ is placed on the end of a noun.

Primary Negation and an Exception
Negated verbs in an intransitive clause are formed in the repricopral voice. Unless found in a dummy-pronoun-less statement (Eg, It is raining, for a while!), because Rain doesn’t take a dummy subject, where in English it does. Negation in finite noun-less statements is formed by placing a “Plain” case on the verb, of the 2ND person variety. This arose from negating particles that wore away and merged with case due to phonological similarities.

Halỏladǒ.run-PRES.IMP. SING.1ST.THEMAT-RECIP
I am not running.

Làkooyu.rain-2ND
It is raining, for a while.

Question Answering Clauses
In intransitive question-answering phrases like “I didn’t do it”(No dummy object), the distinguishitive clitic is placed on the subject to negate the verb.

Infinite Noun-less Clauses
Negation in infinite noun-less statements (Eg, It is raining! are formed by reduplicating the last syllable and placing a high-falling tone on the vowel of the last syllable.

Làkokỏ!rain-2ND
It is raining forever!

In Monotransitive Clauses

Primary Negation
In monotransitive clauses, the main negating tactic is use the plain-old negating morpheme -ná on the verb.

Su nu daloálaná1ST.SING 3RD.SING see-IND.1ST-NEG
I don’t see her

Question Clauses
In clauses where one asks a question, verbs are negated by placing the question particle nǎ after the clause, where usually it would be placed before the clause in other clauses.

Infinitely Detrimental Clauses
In clauses where an action is infinitely detrimental to the object, the now nearly extinct negation suffix -dǎ on the verb.
Su ku lakholadǎ!1ST.SING 2ND.SING love-NONPAST.IMP.SING.1ST.THEMAT-NEG
I will never love you!In Detransitive Clauses

Primary Negation
In detransitive clauses, the main negating tactic is use the plain-old negating morpheme -ná on the verb.

Secondary Negation Tactics
But negation can also be gained by doubling the verbs tense, and aspect marker. It can also be gained by inserting a low-rising tone onto the verbs last vowel, though this is only used in places where it wouldn’t get confusing.

Ku nu dỏalalolololoà su langỏ?2ND.SING 3RD.SING kill-PAST.PER.SING.1ST.THEMAT-IND 1ST.SING for
Did you kill her for me?

Ku nu dỏalǎlololà su langỏ?2ND.SING 3RD.SING kill-PAST.PER.SING.1ST.THEMAT-IND 1ST.SING for
Did you kill her for me?

Question Answering Clauses
And lastly in detransitive question-answering clauses like “I didn’t do the terrible deed for her” the distinguishitive clitic is placed on the subject to negate the verb.

Thematic
Lỏhondla thematic verbs are verbs ending in a vowel. Athematic verbs are marked for tense, aspect, the subjects person, and the subjects number. Athematic verbs used to be marked for the gnomic aspect.

Primary Negation and an Exception
Negated verbs in an intransitive clause are formed in the repricopral voice.

Reciprocal is a voice. It changes argument structures. What has it to do with negation?

Negation in finite noun-less statements is formed by placing a “Plain” case on the verb, of the 2ND person variety. This arose from negating particles that wore away and merged with case due to phonological similarities.

What is "finite noun-less statement"?
What is "a “Plain” case on the verb, of the 2ND person variety"?
If a particle is used for negation I would call it a negation particle, even if it is homonymic with a noun case ending.

Primary Negation and an Exception
Negated verbs in an intransitive clause are formed in the repricopral voice.

Reciprocal is a voice. It changes argument structures. What has it to do with negation?

Negation in finite noun-less statements is formed by placing a “Plain” case on the verb, of the 2ND person variety. This arose from negating particles that wore away and merged with case due to phonological similarities.

What is "finite noun-less statement"?
What is "a “Plain” case on the verb, of the 2ND person variety"?
If a particle is used for negation I would call it a negation particle, even if it is homonymic with a noun case ending.

I use the repricopral for negation because i wanted the voice to be a little more productive, i've been wondering whether i should keep it or not.
I worded that wrong, a " finite noun-less statement" is a statement such as "it is raining for a while", where the verb is finite and takes no subject or object.
The "plain" case part is outdated, it can be ignored.

This is my first direct-inverse language, so i am likely making some mistakes.

Multifunctional forms are always interesting, maybe the best thing in languages. Keep it!

I even find some motivation in equating negation and Reciprocal.

Finnish for example has:
(1) Söin omenan. 'I ate an (whole) apple.'
(2) Söin omenaa. 'I was eating an apple.'
but just
(3) En syönyt omenaa. 'I did'n/wasn't eat(ing) an apple.'
There is less need specifying the aspect if no eating (completed or not) happened.

We can suppose there is an important difference between (4) and (5).
(4) Susan kissed Mary.
(5) Mary kissed Susan.
But if nobody kissed anybody, we can just say (6) or (7).
(6) There was no kissing between Susan and Mary.
(7) Susan and Mary didn't kiss each other.

That could well motivate the loss of coding of semantic roles in negated sentences, which reciprocal often does. I don't though know any language where the reciprocal is used so.

Finnish for example has:
(1) Söin omenan. 'I ate an (whole) apple.'
(2) Söin omenaa. 'I was eating an apple.'
but just
(3) En syönyt omenaa. 'I did'n/wasn't eat(ing) an apple.'
There is less need specifying the aspect if no eating (completed or not) happened.

We can suppose there is an important difference between (4) and (5).
(4) Susan kissed Mary.
(5) Mary kissed Susan.
But if nobody kissed anybody, we can just say (6) or (7).
(6) There was no kissing between Susan and Mary.
(7) Susan and Mary didn't kiss each other.

That could well motivate the loss of coding of semantic roles in negated sentences, which reciprocal often does. I don't though know any language where the reciprocal is used so.

I might remove the direct-inverse alignment and give it something i understand better, such as an ergative or accusative alignment. My understanding of the direct-inverse alignment is that two voices are marked on the verb, direct and indirect. The direct indicates the subject is doing something to an object lower on the hierarchy, and the inverse is the opposite.

I might add more modal particles (which haven't been discussed on this thread as of yet).

I might add a complicated form of lexical aspect.

And some stuff i need to do.

Create a way of forming imperatives and interrogatives.

Find a way to translate should and may, i might use moods. If i used moods i would likely only use deontic and epistemic, which isn't very naturalistic from what i've seen.

Figure out how i'll handle comparatives and superlatives

Finished comparatives and superlatives, will post about it later.

Figure out the voice stacking method... If i even decide to keep it.

And lastly i want to find a away to make verbs more important in a sentence, so i'll likely be coming up with oddly specific verbs and weird nominalisation patterns.

I might remove the direct-inverse alignment and give it something i understand better, such as an ergative or accusative alignment. My understanding of the direct-inverse alignment is that two voices are marked on the verb, direct and indirect. The direct indicates the subject is doing something to an object lower on the hierarchy, and the inverse is the opposite.

Basically you are right.
Terms subject and object are handy for describing Nom-Acc langs but quite bad for even Abs-Erg langs.
Semantic roles the agent and the patient are more practical.

Direct: "The higher one" = the agent, "The lower one " = the patient
Inverse: "The higher one" = the patient, "The lower one" = the patient

Then you should somehow define how one of the participants is defined "higher" if they are are equally animate by natural semantic. Alternatives for coding it (which I know)
* Word order (the participant leftwards is higher if both are equally animate)
* Morphological marker (Either "the higher one" or "the lower one" is marked for being higher/lower) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obviative
* Discourse pragmatics (The participant that is more salient for the discourse before - the topic - is considered "higher")

Swedish can actually be seen as a kind of inverse language. (If I'm right with the examples.)

The participants are of different animacy.
Pojken såg stenen. 'The boy saw a stone.' (Natural semantics and word order defines the roles.)
Stenen såg pojken. 'The stone was seen by the boy.' (Natural semantics defines the roles.)
Pojken sågsav stenen. (An "inverse construction"/Passive for the atypical case.)

The participants are of same animacy.
Pojken såg flickan. 'The boy saw the girl.' (Word order defines the roles.)
Flickan såg pojken. 'The girl saw the boy.' (Word order defines the roles.)
Pojken sågs av flickan. 'The boy was seen by the girl.' (passive)